862.00/2819
The Ambassador in Germany (Sackett) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 12.]
Sir: I have the honor to report that Chancellor Von Papen’s radio address to the American public on the night of July 29 has evoked little comment from the German press, apparently because of a realization that, inasmuch as it was obviously intended for American consumption, it need not be thoroughly dissected here. However, various news items in the German press purport to record the fact that the speech created great interest in the United States, and whether or not the degree of interest is exaggerated, I imagine that the Department would care to have the Embassy’s comment on the speech.
The Chancellor’s statements were perhaps calculated to leave the average American listener under the impression that a civil war would probably have broken out in Germany if his Government had not taken over the reins of power, and that the Nazis are a harmless or even rather estimable patriotic organization. These statements, however, require some checking and analysis.
It is true, as has often been pointed out in previous despatches, that Germany has for a long time past been in a situation which could well be termed a state of latent civil war. In spite of the growth of unemployment, however, the Brüning Government had kept this situation [Page 304] well in hand. It is an indisputable fact, moreover, that the political casualty list began to take on formidable proportions only after the lifting of the ban on open-air demonstrations and party uniforms which constituted one of the first official acts of the new Government. Confirmation of this fact was furnished by the Papen Cabinet itself which, a few weeks later, following the disturbances at Altona (see despatch No. 1841 of July 25, 1932, page 2),25 reimposed the ban on open-air demonstrations, but not on party uniforms. Though serious political disturbances ceased with the renewed prohibition of open-air demonstrations, the political tension and the potential dangers of civil war remained, owing largely to the Government’s refusal to prohibit the wearing of party uniforms. In my opinion therefore, the Chancellor’s claim to having banished these dangers is not well founded.
To further their own political ends, leaders of the so-called national parties in Germany have frequently been inclined to play up the Communist menace in order to be able to accuse the more moderate parties of laxity in dealing with this problem. The deep-rooted aversion of the American people to Communism has apparently encouraged Chancellor Von Papen again to resort to these tactics, this time for foreign consumption. However, it is erroneous to believe that effective resistance to Communism is offered solely by the Right parties in Germany. The Social-Democrats have thus far been in many respects a most effective bulwark against Communism. It was a Social-Democratic Minister of the Interior, who suppressed the Communist Red Front in Prussia, and it is not without reason that Severing, “watch dog” of the Republic, has the distinction of being the man most hated by the Communists. General Groener, an avowed republican, took severe measures to combat Communist propaganda in the Reichswehr, and one of the last acts of the Brüning Cabinet was a decree suppressing Communist atheist organizations (see despatch No. 1715 of May 10, 1932).25
Chancellor Von Papen referred to strong fighting units formed by the Communists. While the dangers of such units can not be ignored, one must not overlook the fact, as Von Papen had done, that the Nazis maintain still stronger units which, unlike those of the Communists, are not illegal, are permitted to wear uniforms and are for the most part housed in barracks.
According to Von Papen, the Nazis are a constructive force striving only for national regeneration, while the aims of the Communists are purely destructive. As a matter of fact the Nazis have sponsored [Page 305] legislation in the various German parliaments that is no less destructive than that of the Communists. The Chancellor overlooked the many socialistic, revolutionary and anarchistic motions which the Nazis, in cooperation with the Communists, have put through the Prussian Diet only a few weeks ago.
It will be recalled that the Nazis sponsored an amnesty bill in Prussia (see section 4 of despatch No. 1783 of June 14, 1932)26 which practically constituted an inducement for irresponsible elements to attack political opponents. It will also be recalled that, in cooperation with the Communists, they passed a motion to “tax away” all income in excess of 12,000 marks annually (see section 6 of despatch No. 1803 of June 28, 1932).26 These are only two instances of recent Nazi activity. That “national regeneration” can be achieved through cooperation with the Communists on such demagogic and anarchistic measures is at least open to doubt.
The general tenor of the Chancellor’s address reflects the benevolent attitude which the Papen Cabinet has maintained toward the Nazis from the very beginning. In the election last Sunday the Nazis had everything in their favor. Their strategic position was perhaps never more favorable than during the campaign for this election. The Papen Cabinet made numerous and important concessions to them and yet they managed to conduct the campaign as an opposition party, rejecting responsibility for the taxation measures contained in the first Presidential Decree promulgated by the new Government and condemning vociferously various actions of the Minister of the Interior. That, under these conditions, the Nazis in last Sunday’s elections were unable to increase their vote to more than a very small extent is a significant and interesting development, which is being reported upon in despatch No. 185526 going forward by this same pouch.
In writing the foregoing I distinctly do not wish to be understood as implying that the Communists are a negligible factor in Germany or that they are not an actively subversive element. They have been guilty, in recent days, of repeated and serious infractions of law and order, the fact of an election campaign being under way bringing the number of these offences to far above the ordinary high average of week-end political clashes; in last Sunday’s elections they made gains which, though not so large relatively speaking, still can not be overlooked; and it must always be borne in mind that a country with [Page 306] such a large amount of unemployment offers constant opportunity for the spread of Communism.
Nevertheless, as this Embassy has frequently reported heretofore, I am of the opinion that the Government authorities have the situation vis-à-vis the Communists well in hand, and are quite able to cope with any serious trouble which they might try to start.
The point of my comments above set forth consequently is that the Chancellor, in his radio speech, portrayed the Nazis in an unduly favorable light, and absolved them of their fair share of the blame for recent disorders in Germany; his presentation of the case, to my mind, having the aspect of yet another phase of the 13 year-old policy persisted in by the German Government of exaggerating the dangers of Communism in order to secure approval for measures which this Government has taken or desires to take.
Respectfully yours,